DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Planning Aid

Keith Hill: Planning aid is the provision of free and independent professional advice on town planning to groups or individuals in need of such advice and who cannot obtain it without an aid service. It is currently funded by the Royal Town Planning Institute and by grants and donations from public, private and charitable organisations but it is significantly under-resourced and stretched in respect of its current role. On 5 February 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister announced in "Sustainable communities: building for the future" that planning aid would receive up to £4 million of Government funding over the next three years to expand its service.
	The enabling legislation supporting wider Office of Deputy Prime Minister spending on planning aid is contained in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. The Bill received Second Reading on 17 December 2002, Official Report, column 729, and it was anticipated that Royal Assent would be received by September 2003. Funding for planning aid was expected to commence from 1 October 2003. However, as my hon. friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) explained during the carry-over debate on the Bill on 10 June 2003, Official Report, column 564, the likely timescale for Royal Assent is now March 2004.
	Planning aid needs to undergo a significant expansion programme to make it more proactive in engaging with communities who traditionally do not get involved in planning issues. The expansion programme is built on the findings of an Office of Deputy Prime Minister funded research study 1 which concluded that there was a clear demand for an independent advisory service, but that planning aid was currently running almost permanently at close to breaking point. Delay in funding planning aid until March would severely undermine the good progress being made in this area.
	An advance from the contingencies fund is being made available. Without the advance planning aid would be very likely to suffer the loss of key staff and volunteers, fracturing the current regional network. This, along with the loss of momentum brought about by the implementation programme, would set back plans to develop planning aid to a point where it might be difficult for it to recover for some time, even after funding became available.
	1 "Planning aid: A review of its role and prospects for development", ODPM, February 2003.
	Parliamentary approval for additional resources for this new service will be sought in a later Estimate for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £554,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingency fund.

Planning Obligations (Consultation Document)

Keith Hill: In December 2001 the Government published a consultation paper proposing that local authorities should set standardised tariffs for different types of development as a substitute for the negotiated planning obligations permitted by section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In July 2002 the Government indicated that they had decided not to proceed with this proposal and would consider other options. They also indicated that many of the Government's objectives could be achieved through non-legislative routes.
	Today I am publishing a further consultation document seeking views on firm proposals for the reform of planning obligations. These proposals contain a mixture of administrative and legislative reforms and are designed to increase the speed, certainty and transparency of the planning obligations while retaining flexibility.
	New development brings benefits to communities, including homes, jobs, and a range of new services and facilities. Investment in land and property is also an important component of economic growth and higher productivity.
	New development can also have an impact on services and infrastructure in the local area. The existing system of planning obligations permits planning authorities to seek contributions from developers, which are used to mitigate negative impacts. They therefore facilitate development, which might otherwise not occur. So planning obligations help the developer, the community and the local authority to work together to deliver successful and sustainable communities.
	However, the current system of negotiating planning obligations is often slow, resource intensive and lacks transparency. Development is often delayed rather than facilitated by the process.
	The Government have therefore decided to introduce changes designed to give developers the choice between the current negotiated approach offering flexibility and a pre-determined charge, which offers speed and certainty. We will legislate within the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to introduce this new optional charge. We will also revise our existing statement of policy on planning obligations, Circular 1/97, to remove the inconsistency which the policy exhibits compared to case law, to require greater transparency in the use of negotiated obligations, to encourage best practice and to set out our policy in relation to the new charge.
	Local planning authorities would be required to set out their charge proposals in advance, giving the developer certainty as to the level of the contribution they will be asked to make and an indication of the impacts of development to which charge income will be applied. This requirement will also mean that assessing and mitigating the impact of development will become a plan-led activity. If developers opt to pay the charge, we propose that legislation would prevent local planning authorities from seeking any further financial or in-kind contribution in respect of those matters covered by the charge. Our consultation document invites views on the matters that would be covered. However, planning obligations can extend to non-financial matters as well and we expect that where the charge is paid, a residual negotiation may have to take place. But we are determined to ensure that our final proposals do not ask developers to pay twice.
	The developer will always have the option not to pay the charge and to negotiate in the same way as the present system allows. For example, negotiation might still be necessary for difficult, financially marginal or special cases where a negotiation can better mould the agreement to the proposed development. We propose that our new policy will require all local planning authorities to adopt existing best practice and set out the matters to be covered in negotiation in local planning instruments. So transparency and predictability will be increased even where the developer opts not to pay the charge.
	We propose to amend the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to enable us to make these reforms. These amendments will provide a power to establish the new optional charge but we intend to use secondary legislation to set out the detailed framework. This secondary legislation will be informed by the outcome of the consultation, an approach that will enable business, local government and other stakeholders to contribute to the development of the new system. To aid this further, I aim to publish draft Regulations in January and in spring 2004 we will also consult on a new draft Circular to replace Circular 1/97.
	The consultation period runs until 8 January 2004 and we welcome views on how best to make our proposals work for everyone involved in securing sustainable communities: developers, local authorities and the communities they serve.
	The Government appointed Kate Barker earlier this year to investigate factors affecting the supply of housing, including the role of the planning system. The Government will consider any relevant recommendations of the Barker review before it finalises its planning obligations policy in summer 2004. Representations already made to the Barker review on the subject of planning obligations will be taken into account as the Government finalise their policy.
	In conclusion, the Government believe that the proposals offer an opportunity to resolve this difficult area of policy in a way, which retains flexibility where necessary and offers speed and certainty where possible.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries

Hilary Benn: I have previously indicated that changes would be made to planned future programme allocations for middle-income countries over the next two years. This results from decisions taken on financing for Iraq and the Government's commitment to increase the proportion of our direct assistance going to the poorest countries.
	As reported in the Department's 2003 Annual Report, we are planning to increase significantly total bilateral allocations for DFID's country and regional programmes over the next two years from this year's estimated total of £1.429 billion to £1.762 billion in 2004–05 and £2.078 billion in 2005–06. This includes meeting the Prime Minister's commitment to increase our spending for Africa to £1 billion annually by 2005–06; and increasing our spending in Asia by some 45 per cent. to nearly £800 million by the same year. Overall, the UK's aid budget will grow to nearly £4.6 billion by 2005–06, an average annual increase over the 2002 spending review period of 8.1 per cent. in real terms. The UK's level of Official Development Assistance is set to reach 0.4 per cent. of national income by 2005–06—a 93 per cent. increase in real terms since 1997. This is evidence of this Government's continued commitment to make progress towards meeting the UN target of an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.7 per cent.
	As set out in the 2003 Departmental report, responding to changes in circumstances is an integral part of DFID's work, and financial allocations for future years are subject to change. We had already planned to reduce the overall allocation to middle-income countries in order to allow an increase in spending on the poorest countries.
	Over the next two years, funding for the reconstruction of Iraq includes £50 million reallocated from planned programmes, together with DFID contingency funding of £115 million and contributions from other Government Departments. Our Public Service Agreement includes the commitment to increase the share of our bilateral programme going to low-income countries to 90 per cent. by 2005–06. As a consequence of the temporary increase in funding for Iraq, which we expect to return to middle-income status soon, we will also need to move a further estimated £50 million from middle-income country programmes to low-income country programmes. This is in line with our commitment to the 90 per cent. target.
	The total effect of these changes will be a reduction in planned bilateral spending in middle-income countries in 2004–05 and 2005–06 of around £100 million. Funding for programmes in middle-income countries during the current financial year will not be affected. Our budget for humanitarian activities will remain as planned.
	We will continue to provide substantial support to middle-income countries through our contributions to multilateral institutions. In 2001–02 this amounted to some £600 million, of which some £350 million was for middle-income developing countries; and the rest was for middle-income countries in transition.
	These changes in planned bilateral allocations will involve withdrawal from programmes, earlier than we had previously decided, from a number of middle-income countries, which are less dependent on UK bilateral aid. Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Egypt are in this category. Our planned programme in Jordan will be re-phased. Our current programmes in Anguilla and TCI will now close in 2004–05, a year earlier than originally planned.
	We will be continuing with our bilateral programmes, with some reduction in spending levels and in some cases an adjustment of focus in the following countries/regions: South Africa, China, Sri Lanka, Russia, Jamaica, Guyana, Brazil, Bolivia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and the Caribbean. Our small programme in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will close by 2005–06, as will the small programmes in Peru and Honduras. We will be developing a new approach to regional involvement in Latin America. Our programmes in the Palestinian Authority, Montserrat and St Helena will remain unaffected; and we will retain a programme in Nicaragua.
	I also propose to increase, from 2005–06, our partnership funding for NGOs, including those working with middle-income countries and Latin America.
	My officials are in touch with all of the countries affected by these changes in plans. We are also talking to the multilateral agencies and some other bilateral donors about the scope for increasing our cooperation with them. This will be reflected in the new middle-income country strategy that the Department is preparing in consultation with other Departments in Whitehall. I shall report further to the House on the impact on individual country programmes once these discussions are complete.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Diversity of the Magistracy

Christopher Leslie: At the beginning of October, the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor published a national strategy for recruitment to the magistracy, setting out my Department's plans to increase the number of appointments as a justice of the peace, and to encourage applications from people with a wider range of backgrounds. In furtherance of the national strategy, the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor is now amending his directions to the Committees, which advise him on magisterial appointments. The Committees are asked to achieve a bench that is broadly representative of the community which they serve. Following advice from royal commissions in 1910 and 1948, political association has hitherto been used as an indicator of social class in seeking to achieve that balance. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the way people vote is no longer a reliable guide to social perspective and standing. Therefore a new system is being introduced; applicants will identify themselves against occupational and industrial groupings, based on standard classifications used by the Office for National Statistics. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor is also telling the Committees that there need be no lower age limit for applicants who can show that they have the key qualities needed for appointment. Copies of the national strategy document and of the new application form, which sets out the occupational groupings categories, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

Future Command Liasion Vehicle

Adam Ingram: I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defence has today signed a contract worth £166 million (including VAT) with Alvis Vickers Ltd, for the manufacture of the future command and liaison vehicle (FCLV).
	On 17 July we announced that the FCLV would be deployed with the RAF regiment and that the contract value would be worth over £200 million. Ongoing work on armoured fighting vehicle rationalisation has led to a review of the initial requirement for vehicles. Consequently, we have revised the size of the initial procurement of FCLV whilst retaining the option to procure additional FCLV at a later date. The RAF regiment will no longer receive vehicles from the initial fleet of FCLV and the contract value of the initial work has been revised.
	The FCLV will perform the command and liaison role and replace the ageing and disparate vehicle fleet within the manoeuvre support brigades comprising elements of the 430 series, Saxon, Land Rover and combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked) fleets. From its planned in-service date of 2006, the FCLV will provide levels of crew protection and mobility commensurate with their roles in an increasingly extended ground manoeuvre area. It will offer protection against small arms, blast and anti-personnel mines. Those in the direct fire zone will contain a self-defence weapon (SDW) that can be operated under armour to provide suppressive fire and surveillance and target acquisition (STA) system will be provided to enhance situational awareness, reconnaissance, targeting and reporting. The vehicle has been selected to deliver the solution to the armed forces requirement for enhanced speed, reliability, flexibility and protection for a wide range of users in combat or peacekeeping operations.
	The award of this contract to Alvis Vickers Ltd is excellent news for both our Armed Forces and the defence industry. It will sustain approximately 35 highly skilled jobs at the Alvis Vickers Ltd facility at Telford, and a further 25 within other UK companies. This is the culmination of work conducted by both the MOD and industry, and is a good example of the principles of smart acquisition being put into practice. It is incumbent on the MOD and industry to work together to ensure that our armed forces have access to the right equipment, in the right quantities, at the right time and at the right price.

Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence AgencyTargets (2003–04)

Adam Ingram: The role of the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence agency is to provide imagery intelligence and geographic support to defence policy, operations and training; to meet customer requirements for imagery intelligence and geographic support in accordance with defence priorities; to maintain and develop agency capabilities and readiness in line with future defence requirements; and to become progressively more efficient, whilst improving the quality and delivery of its products and services. The key targets for the agency for the 12 months from April 2003 are:
	Key Target 1A—Operational IMINT Provision
	To satisfy operational requirements for Imagery Intelligence within timescales and to standards agreed between the Agency and its customers, by satisfying at least 95 per cent. of requirements overall, whilst delivering not less than 98 per cent. of priority one tasks.
	Key Target 1B—Operational Geographic Support
	To satisfy operational requirements for geographic support within timescales and to standards agreed between the agency and its customers, by satisfying 100 per cent. of the geographic products and services essential to support current and potential operations, both from the agency's UK based operation and its deployable units.
	Key Target 2—Readiness
	To achieve the required levels of operational readiness in line with defence planning assumptions, whilst continuing to satisfy those deployable element outputs required under Key Target 1, maintaining agreed states of readiness as set by PJHQ for all contingency forces.
	Key Target 3A—Strategic and Contingency IMINT Provision
	To satisfy strategic and contingency requirements for Imagery Intelligence within timescales and to standards agreed between the agency and its customers, by providing at least 57 per cent. of the requirements as set out in the imagery exploitation programme (HEP), while delivering not less than 92 per cent. of priority one tasks.
	Key Target 3B—Strategic and Contingency Geographic Support
	To satisfy strategic and contingency requirements for geographic support within timescales and to standards agreed between the agency and its customers, completing at least 90 per cent. of a customer endorsed programme of work for geographic products and services.
	Key Target 3T (Transitional)—Measurement of Geospatial Provision
	To develop improved mechanisms for the measurement of geospatial provision which enable effective evaluation of output efficiency. Definition of output measurement mechanisms for geospatial provision which enable a baseline for output efficiency to be quantified during FY 04–05.
	Key Target 4—Improvement in Geographic Information Holdings
	To demonstrate a further 1 per cent. improvement in the coverage of geographic information holdings resulting in at least a cumulative 4 per cent. improvement on the baseline established in 1999, and to ensure that the quality of the collection achieves the level of readiness agreed with customers. This will be demonstrated by maintaining the MOD map library collection at the agreed level of readiness and achieving a further 1 per cent. improvement in coverage of geographic information holdings.
	Key Target 5T (Transitional)—Output Efficiency
	To define mechanisms for the measurement of output efficiency that encompass all key areas of agency business, which will enable a baseline for output efficiency to be quantified during FY 04–05.

Defence Intelligence and Security Centre AgencyTargets (2003–04)

Adam Ingram: DISC is the centre for defence intelligence training in the UK. CE DISC is responsible for training authorised personnel in intelligence, security and information support disciplines and maintaining an operational capability. The key targets for the agency for the 12 months from April 2003 are:
	Key Target 1—Training Quantity
	To deliver, within the resources available, the quantity of training places agreed with sponsors through the statement of training requirement (SOTR) process, and as endorsed by the customer executive board (CEB) and owner's advisory board (OAB).
	Key Target 2—Training Quality
	To set up a new process by which DISC can measure its training output in terms of quality.
	Key Target 3—Efficiency
	To reduce the current cost in real terms of delivering the average training place made available and to reduce the average cost of a man training day (MTD) successfully completed in financial year (FY) 2003–04.
	Key Target 4—Operations
	To satisfy the operational tasking of the defence de-briefing team (DOT) and the field HUMINT team (FHT).

TREASURY

UK Dividends (Taxation Changes)

Dawn Primarolo: Legislation to block potential tax avoidance by individuals using transactions in UK equities is to be included in Finance Bill 2004. The changes will have immediate effect.
	The legislation closes a loophole resulting from a mismatch in the rules for taxing UK dividends and making "manufactured" payments under a sale and repurchase (repo) or stock lending arrangement. These schemes enable individuals to obtain an unintended tax windfall by using repos or stock loans to manufacture a dividend payment. The new provisions will apply to dividends received and manufactured dividends paid on or after today.
	A copy of today's Inland Revenue news release giving the relevant background to this measure has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and is accessible on the Inland Revenue's website at http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk.